Community members who violate the Expectations of Conduct will be subject to disciplinary actions. Penalties have been put into place in order to ensure that all members treat each other and the community as a whole with
...

Consequences:

Community members who violate the Expectations of Conduct will be subject to disciplinary actions. Penalties have been put into place in order to ensure that all members treat each other and the community as a whole with consideration and respect.

An official warning may be given to a contributor who has numerous complaints against them, even if none of their posts or threads has been flagged. Three warnings will result in a one-month suspension from EdenFantasys. After the first suspension, any further incidents can result in permanent banning..

There are some actions that can result in immediate suspension or banning: defamation, bullying, threatening, spam content, fake/spam reviews, and plagiarism. These will be decided on a case by case basis. Depending on the activities in question, we reserve the right to temporarily disable your account pending your response to an e-mail from us to prevent further abuse from occurring. You will also be issued an official warning and that will remain in effect even after your account has been reinstated.

Spam content includes posts, threads, comments on reviews, product pages, and anywhere else content can be added that adds nothing to the topic - For example, “nice review” on a forum thread.

At EdenFantasys, we define plagiarism as, “duplication of information, in total or in parts, that is presented as original work”. While you can use other sources for information, you must somehow cite that it is not your original work. If we find plagiarism in a review, the review will be unpublished and your account may be disabled. This is determined on a case-by-case situation

In addition to spam, links to competitors' sites and outside affiliate links are prohibited. When found, the links will be broken or removed and a warning will be issued.

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. But is posting a link to a company's website in a review included in this? I once linked to the company's page in a review because there wasn't any info here yet on that particular company. I have also linked to a company's page for a video that I thought would be helpful to direct people to that were interested in how a toy works and I am unable to make video reviews. I just want to know for sure if that is allowed before I do it again in the future.

Well I agree with everybody, it is all great! However, I really am disappointed that some really took it so far that such serious rules even had to be made. I hope maybe that this new change will be enough to discourage those who were doing the bad things to stop and then everything grow from there. Now, I must end this with...

Activities just to earn EdenPoints, that have no value to the community, are considered “Point Farming”. The following examples of point farming are not exclusive; the Forum Moderator can determine when other activities could
...

Point Farming:

Activities just to earn EdenPoints, that have no value to the community, are considered “Point Farming”. The following examples of point farming are not exclusive; the Forum Moderator can determine when other activities could be considered point farming. Some examples of point farming are:

- 01: Repeated following and un-following of manufacturers and contributors.

- 02: Posting emoticons as comments or forum posts.

- 03: Numerous threads and posts being created that offer nothing of value to the forums. While we do encourage questions about products being asked on the forums, we ask that the questions first be researched on the website for an answer and then asked via the forums if a satisfactory answer was not found.

- 04: Uploading several videos to EdenTube that are irrelevant to EdenFantasys.

- 05: Posting multiple forum threads sequentially. It’s one thing to have a question; it’s another to post the same question five different ways on different threads.

When investigating EdenPoint abuse, we consider all activity, not just occasional out of place actions. If you are doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. If you have any questions, you can always contact us.

This is the grey zone that causes me the most angst. There are so many instances of posts on the forums that I question yet am unsure if they are examples of point farming or simply new contributors or unfamiliar with the EOC. Perhaps the Forum Moderator could make a concerted effort to point out instances that EF considers to be in violation? It might be helpful to create a generic message with a link to the EOC to educate that person. That way not only does the contributor get educated, but the rest of the community as well in terms of what is considered acceptable versus not acceptable. I just find there's a lot of room for interpretation here and some guidance would be appreciated.

There have been numerous cases of contributors creating multiple accounts to abuse or exploit many of the programs and privileges on the site. We take these offenses very seriously and definite action will be taken in
...

Multiple Accounts:

There have been numerous cases of contributors creating multiple accounts to abuse or exploit many of the programs and privileges on the site. We take these offenses very seriously and definite action will be taken in every case. The accounts will be disabled, and the IP addresses will be blocked. This is a lose-lose situation. Creating multiple accounts is dishonest; it undermines the entire purpose of the community.

It's unclear to me exactly how this is to be handled. For example, in my recent experience where someone obviously used a secondary account to down vote 20 of my reviews, what would happen under the new EOC? Do you plan to determine the IP address each time? If not, what purpose does it serve to warn or even ban the secondary account when the perpetrator can simply create more? To me, secondary accounts are a huge issue and a way for contributors to retaliate with little consequence. Again in my example, the down votes didn't lower my rank like they hoped for, but they are still present on my reviews which I don't like. In this particular instance, personally I think an IP ban would be appropriate since the action was obviously malicious. I would prefer a zero tolerance for such behavior.

Lastly, would it be possible to create a convenient "Contact Forum Moderator" button so it's easier to notify the appropriate person rather than having to look up the account? Maybe under the "Expert Help" tab so it's available on any page visited?

I wish there was just one post that also just high-lighted the newest changes. I think I caught some, but I'm sure I probably missed some too.

"We also reserve the right to replace a graphic (nudity) or copyrighted image avatar with
...

I wish there was just one post that also just high-lighted the newest changes. I think I caught some, but I'm sure I probably missed some too.

"We also reserve the right to replace a graphic (nudity) or copyrighted image avatar with a default image. If you have any questions if an avatar is appropriate or not, ask an Admin." I am especially pleased with this

The rest is very fair. The new forum moderation account is cool and I look forward to that positive change!

Thanks guys.

Not sure it's helpful, but here is the EOC as of 7/18/2011 based on the Wayback time machine: link" rel="nofollow">link

This is the grey zone that causes me the most angst. There are so many instances of posts on the forums that I question yet am unsure if they are examples of point farming or simply new contributors or unfamiliar with the EOC. Perhaps the Forum
...

This is the grey zone that causes me the most angst. There are so many instances of posts on the forums that I question yet am unsure if they are examples of point farming or simply new contributors or unfamiliar with the EOC. Perhaps the Forum Moderator could make a concerted effort to point out instances that EF considers to be in violation? It might be helpful to create a generic message with a link to the EOC to educate that person. That way not only does the contributor get educated, but the rest of the community as well in terms of what is considered acceptable versus not acceptable. I just find there's a lot of room for interpretation here and some guidance would be appreciated.

I think Kindred is right on.

When I first joined, I couldn't tell if these brief, repetitive posts ("nice review") were part of the culture or not. I understood that users were probably doing this for points, but until I was exposed to this ongoing debate over farming, it wasn't clear to me whether the behavior was acceptable or not. (Though I suppose the new EoC would have answered that question for me, so maybe my and Kindred's concerns are a bit different.)

I think there were some great actions taken here. I hope EVERYONE reads that there cannot be emotions on product pages. That annoys me to see a happy face running around with nothing said. I don't mind if someone said I really want to try this and then add a smiley face, but when there's nothing besides the emotion, I wonder what they're trying to get across.

Lastly, would it be possible to create a convenient "Contact Forum Moderator" button so it's easier to notify the appropriate person rather than having to look up the account? Maybe under the "Expert Help" tab so it's available on any page visited?

I like this idea, but what I did for the time being was added the contributor's url to my favorite websites.

I like this idea, but what I did for the time being was added the contributor's url to my favorite websites.

That's a good idea. I was going to Follow the account but I often find the follow list unhelpful except for the few most recent added to the list. Otherwise it's easier to perform a search to locate profiles.

It's unclear to me exactly how this is to be handled. For example, in my recent experience where someone obviously used a secondary account to down vote 20 of my reviews, what would happen under the new EOC? Do you plan to determine the IP
...

It's unclear to me exactly how this is to be handled. For example, in my recent experience where someone obviously used a secondary account to down vote 20 of my reviews, what would happen under the new EOC? Do you plan to determine the IP address each time? If not, what purpose does it serve to warn or even ban the secondary account when the perpetrator can simply create more? To me, secondary accounts are a huge issue and a way for contributors to retaliate with little consequence. Again in my example, the down votes didn't lower my rank like they hoped for, but they are still present on my reviews which I don't like. In this particular instance, personally I think an IP ban would be appropriate since the action was obviously malicious. I would prefer a zero tolerance for such behavior.

I totally agree here too. Double accounts are a really huge issue. It is a way for someone to get away with doing things. If they do it slowly, then no consequence is going to happen at all. Something needs to change about double accounts. I know that it will be unfair to those who do have separate couples accounts and roommates, but this is leaving open a window of opportunity to abuse the system. I have to agree with what is said about the person who down voted Kindred too. An IP ban should be done that was malicious behavior, there should be zero tolerance for some behavior. That was personally attacking one person.

That's a good idea. I was going to Follow the account but I often find the follow list unhelpful except for the few most recent added to the list. Otherwise it's easier to perform a search to locate profiles.

I followed too, but knew it would get lost eventually. That was my idea to fix the issue. Glad you like it.

It looks good, very good. IF people read it, it will help a lot. Maybe linking the EoC to registering or logging on would help. Some people will still ignore the EoC. But, having it as a way to get into the site when you register or log on after logging off might help. Something like "I have read the EoC and agree to abide by its content." Something similar to that.

I share Kindred's and Becks (and others') concerns about multiple identities and multiple accounts. There is at least one member I know for sure has at least two accounts, I know at least a few of her accounts were closed, yet the posting, reviewing etc continues. She also votes on her own reviews. (Always EU. Of course.) Should we again report when we see this?

It looks good, very good. IF people read it, it will help a lot. Maybe linking the EoC to registering or logging on would help. Some people will still ignore the EoC. But, having it as a way to get into the site when you register or log on after
...

It looks good, very good. IF people read it, it will help a lot. Maybe linking the EoC to registering or logging on would help. Some people will still ignore the EoC. But, having it as a way to get into the site when you register or log on after logging off might help. Something like "I have read the EoC and agree to abide by its content." Something similar to that.

I share Kindred's and Becks (and others') concerns about multiple identities and multiple accounts. There is at least one member I know for sure has at least two accounts, I know at least a few of her accounts were closed, yet the posting, reviewing etc continues. She also votes on her own reviews. (Always EU. Of course.) Should we again report when we see this?

I believe you should still be reporting it so that it can be investigated.

I totally agree here too. Double accounts are a really huge issue. It is a way for someone to get away with doing things. If they do it slowly, then no consequence is going to happen at all. Something needs to change about double accounts. I know
...

I totally agree here too. Double accounts are a really huge issue. It is a way for someone to get away with doing things. If they do it slowly, then no consequence is going to happen at all. Something needs to change about double accounts. I know that it will be unfair to those who do have separate couples accounts and roommates, but this is leaving open a window of opportunity to abuse the system. I have to agree with what is said about the person who down voted Kindred too. An IP ban should be done that was malicious behavior, there should be zero tolerance for some behavior. That was personally attacking one person.

I don't think two or more accounts on the same IP should be an instaban offense - there are too many legitimate ways multiple people might share a computer or an internet connection. But each case should be investigated, I believe. If UserA and UserB are using the same computer because they are a couple or flatmates, then their account activity would show different patterns than if UserB is just UserA's sockpuppet.

I don't think two or more accounts on the same IP should be an instaban offense - there are too many legitimate ways multiple people might share a computer or an internet connection. But each case should be investigated, I believe. If UserA and
...

I don't think two or more accounts on the same IP should be an instaban offense - there are too many legitimate ways multiple people might share a computer or an internet connection. But each case should be investigated, I believe. If UserA and UserB are using the same computer because they are a couple or flatmates, then their account activity would show different patterns than if UserB is just UserA's sockpuppet.

I agree. It should not instantly ban you and each case should be investigated, but there are going to be cases where is it s questionable to if it is a double account. This is where the window of opportunity is for the abuse of the system with little consequence happening.

I don't think two or more accounts on the same IP should be an instaban offense - there are too many legitimate ways multiple people might share a computer or an internet connection. But each case should be investigated, I believe. If UserA and
...

I don't think two or more accounts on the same IP should be an instaban offense - there are too many legitimate ways multiple people might share a computer or an internet connection. But each case should be investigated, I believe. If UserA and UserB are using the same computer because they are a couple or flatmates, then their account activity would show different patterns than if UserB is just UserA's sockpuppet.

Banning IPs just doesn't work when there are multiple users utilizing the same wireless connection. Flatmates and spouses are the least of it; what about college dorms, libraries and other public access spots? Retaliatory downvoting and other antisocial behavior should be addressed — for example, I hope those downvotes will be removed from Kindred's reviews — but I do not think IP banning is the insta-fix everyone hopes it will be.

One issue I had hoped to see addressed in the updated EOC is the policy on linking to competitor sites. I think many people innocently fall afoul of this rule, but what is more bothersome to me is that it doesn't appear to be enforced consistently. I can point out a number of threads — any EF Should Carry thread comes to mind — where it's done left and right with no consequence. Then out of the blue a single thread gets the rule quoted at the OP. It gives the appearance that either some posters are privileged, or that the rules were made to be ignored.

Banning IPs just doesn't work when there are multiple users utilizing the same wireless connection. Flatmates and spouses are the least of it; what about college dorms, libraries and other public access spots? Retaliatory downvoting and other
...

Banning IPs just doesn't work when there are multiple users utilizing the same wireless connection. Flatmates and spouses are the least of it; what about college dorms, libraries and other public access spots? Retaliatory downvoting and other antisocial behavior should be addressed — for example, I hope those downvotes will be removed from Kindred's reviews — but I do not think IP banning is the insta-fix everyone hopes it will be.

One issue I had hoped to see addressed in the updated EOC is the policy on linking to competitor sites. I think many people innocently fall afoul of this rule, but what is more bothersome to me is that it doesn't appear to be enforced consistently. I can point out a number of threads — any EF Should Carry thread comes to mind — where it's done left and right with no consequence. Then out of the blue a single thread gets the rule quoted at the OP. It gives the appearance that either some posters are privileged, or that the rules were made to be ignored.

I agree that IP banning may not be the solution we hope it would be. I guess the bigger issue is that until EF comes up with a solution to address abuse of multiple accounts, the behavior will simply continue with little to no repercussions. It's simply too easy to create a new account and simply blame a roommate. I guess the question is, how do you truly verify an account?

I agree that IP banning may not be the solution we hope it would be. I guess the bigger issue is that until EF comes up with a solution to address abuse of multiple accounts, the behavior will simply continue with little to no repercussions.
...

I agree that IP banning may not be the solution we hope it would be. I guess the bigger issue is that until EF comes up with a solution to address abuse of multiple accounts, the behavior will simply continue with little to no repercussions. It's simply too easy to create a new account and simply blame a roommate. I guess the question is, how do you truly verify an account?

I remember not too long ago an idea was brought up about having to use our ID #'s to verify who we are with our account information. This was back when they changed the rule about only being able to use the gift cards for your account only. I still think this is a good idea. If we have some way to verify all the accounts then the double account issue would be solved, mostly. Because roommates, couples, and everyone else have their own numbers. This would also verify age as well.

Banning IPs just doesn't work when there are multiple users utilizing the same wireless connection. Flatmates and spouses are the least of it; what about college dorms, libraries and other public access spots? Retaliatory downvoting and other
...

Banning IPs just doesn't work when there are multiple users utilizing the same wireless connection. Flatmates and spouses are the least of it; what about college dorms, libraries and other public access spots? Retaliatory downvoting and other antisocial behavior should be addressed — for example, I hope those downvotes will be removed from Kindred's reviews — but I do not think IP banning is the insta-fix everyone hopes it will be.

One issue I had hoped to see addressed in the updated EOC is the policy on linking to competitor sites. I think many people innocently fall afoul of this rule, but what is more bothersome to me is that it doesn't appear to be enforced consistently. I can point out a number of threads — any EF Should Carry thread comes to mind — where it's done left and right with no consequence. Then out of the blue a single thread gets the rule quoted at the OP. It gives the appearance that either some posters are privileged, or that the rules were made to be ignored.

I agree that the linking to competitor's site is a bit of a grey area. In the 'EF should Carry' thread, how else are we supposed to link to the products if Eden doesn't already carry them?

Banning IPs just doesn't work when there are multiple users utilizing the same wireless connection. Flatmates and spouses are the least of it; what about college dorms, libraries and other public access spots? Retaliatory downvoting and other
...

Banning IPs just doesn't work when there are multiple users utilizing the same wireless connection. Flatmates and spouses are the least of it; what about college dorms, libraries and other public access spots? Retaliatory downvoting and other antisocial behavior should be addressed — for example, I hope those downvotes will be removed from Kindred's reviews — but I do not think IP banning is the insta-fix everyone hopes it will be.

One issue I had hoped to see addressed in the updated EOC is the policy on linking to competitor sites. I think many people innocently fall afoul of this rule, but what is more bothersome to me is that it doesn't appear to be enforced consistently. I can point out a number of threads — any EF Should Carry thread comes to mind — where it's done left and right with no consequence. Then out of the blue a single thread gets the rule quoted at the OP. It gives the appearance that either some posters are privileged, or that the rules were made to be ignored.

I agree, I think that we should either only be able to post images of toys or it should be a bit more lenient. I think that it's strange that the Eden Should Carry threads never get shut down for this and, even though they are a bit different, it makes some threads seem more... Privileged.